October 13, 2017

But he played such a convincing gay guy in Miss Doubtfire

by liberal japonicus

Not meaning to make light of the Harvey Weinstein revelations, but this was funny:

On Oct. 5, The New York Times published a disturbing report detailing sexual harassment allegations against film producer and executive Harvey Weinstein, some of which dated back nearly three decades. After news of the allegations broke, the Weinstein Company fired the 65-year-old movie mogul, who co-founded the studio with his brother, Bob. The claims against Weinstein intensified Tuesday when the New Yorker published an investigative report, written by Ronan Farrow, that detailed rape allegations brought by three women.

Unfortunately, the similar spellings of their surnames have lead many to confuse Weinstein for Fierstein, the legendary actor-playwright of “Torch Song Trilogy” fame and an LGBTQ rights icon.

“I just can’t believe all these accusations of sexual harassment about Harvey Fierstein,” one person wrote. “I always thought he was gay.” Added another: “Am I the only one who confused this weekend because I didn’t know Harvey Weinstein and Harvey Fierstein were two different people?”

I should also add that Fierstein has also noted that "I’ve had some fun with the mix-up but, as you are well aware, the underlying issues of women being objectified is no laughing matter. So I think I am going to bow out of this discussion, stop making jokes, and let that story play itself out without my two cents.”

I have some thoughts about this, but thought we needed to another thread to hijack for gun control. Have at it.

Sapient, the article is an interview with Te-Nehisi Coates, and the anecdote about Ai Wei Wei is contextualized in the interview. You disagree, that's fine, but I'm asking you to either chill or step back. Thanks.

The article didn’t say that, sapient. Not even close, afaik. I qualified that because the Wei Wei reference went over my head. I have been meaning to look up who Wei Wei is because I have seen the name a few times and am utterly clueless up to this moment.

As for saintliness, I have been under something of a partial self ban for awhile as I need to think about how to interact online on topics where I get as angry as you do. My solution, the one that works best, is to mostly just lurk.

Ai Wei Wei is a very considerable artist, and a brave man who has been persecuted and almost killed by the totalitarian regime in China, as his father was persecuted before him. Whether one agrees with him or not, he deserves a respectful hearing when he talks about politics, he has suffered a great deal to be able to do so.

Donald whatever. I commented on that earlier article that you linked to, because it was historically inaccurate, and kind of dumb. I'm a big fan of Ta-Nehisi Coates for his many articles on the Civil War, and on race, but he and I got into a bit of a tiff on an artilce he wrote regarding Obama's foreign policy.

As far as Ai Wei Wei is concerned, I've been following new articles about him since he was incarcerated in China. A close relative of mine lives in China, so I'm interested (concerned, aware, learning ... etc.). You know what? Most Chinese people have nada insight on US politics, which I was responding to about lj's comment. As for your choice of places to find news? Okay, "both sides do it, but neoliberal Clinton etc. are worse. "

You know what? I've actually been doing some granular work with people who've been affected by Trump's cruelty. You're so freaking wrong, and I really can't hold back on how much damage your failure to support Democrats (versus fascists) has cost lives. Maybe you're just dumb or something (although you don't seem intellectually impaired). But you're wrong, whatever your problem is.

I've been warned. I'm not supposed to argue with you. So just go do whatever it is that makes you feel affirmed. Bye.

Whether one agrees with him or not, he deserves a respectful hearing when he talks about politics, he has suffered a great deal to be able to do so.

It's not disrespecting someone to note that they have little knowledge of US politics. Almost nobody in china does. Just saying. Pretending that Chinese people have an objective view of the US is just not correct.

Sapient, he lived in the States for approximately thirteen years, and went to U. Penn and Berkley.

In the late eighties/ early nineties. So he had an objective view of the Obama administration? After having been jailed by Chinese authorities in 2011? I'm sure the Chinese government gave him an unhindered view of life in the US during that time! All good gftnc - leaning in to the Chinese regime's post 2011 view of Obama! You're so wise!

sapient, you're losing your grip again. When the red mist clears, if you look back on these comments, you'll be embarrassed. I'm going to bed, if you're wise you'll have a drink, listen to some jazz, and then do likewise.

Sapient, you are (I think) literally incapable of understanding people who disagree with you on politics, at least in some cases. I doubt it is just me, but when I am around it brings out the worst in you. I am mostly going to lurk, mainly because I keep rediscovering that arguing with people online doesn’t accomplish much of anything. I will post links from time to time.

You may believe what you say, but you are being led by anger into saying absurd things. For example, Ai Wei Wei has been out of jail since, I believe, 2011,and now lives in Germany. Do you suppose this highly political artist has not informed himself of world developments in this time? I do not say his views are or must be right, just that your contention that Chinese people know little about US politics, or after that that he would not know about recent politics because of his incarceration, are inapplicable and demonstrably wrong in this case. You disagree with him, fair enough. Why is it then necessary to start throwing sarcastic insults around and making clearly ridiculous arguments to justify them?

I do not say his views are or must be right, just that your contention that Chinese people know little about US politics, or after that that he would not know about recent politics because of his incarceration, are inapplicable and demonstrably wrong in this case. You disagree with him, fair enough. Why is it then necessary to start throwing sarcastic insults around and making clearly ridiculous arguments to justify them?

Have you experienced Chinese censorship? Probably not. Maybe when you've been there you've had a good VPN. I would suggest that a dissident probably hasn't had a long and informed view of American politics. I would even say that my expat relative has to work on it a lot.

Sapient, I thought that link had some interesting points, but on second thought was probably misleading about the history of the 2nd Amendment. I liked the idea that if it was meant to protect freedom we shouldn't make a fetish of the material object but pay attention to the underlying motivation. So he compared it to people hypothetically thinking freedom of speech means we all get to own a printing press. I thought that was clever.

Of course if the real motive for the 2nd Amendment was to suppress armed rebellions by farmers or slaves, then the whole thing seems a bit anachronistic and there isn’t much of an analogy with the First Amendment.

And that was meant to illustrate how you could criticize the link without being really angry about it. I get how my presence is like fingernails on a chalkboard for you and given my own tendencies towards useless argumentation I am again going to greatly limit myself around here and other places. If you can’t handle even that much— well, whatever. There really won’t be too many links.

But Donald J Trump is not "only a more extroverted version of what we've seen from the United States presidency in general".

Sorry, that's horseshit. DJT is an ignorant corrupt belligerent thin-skinned stupid vain old horse's ass, to a degree remarkable even for American plutocratic lucky sperm club members. He's a fucking crook, a misogynist pig, and a famous shyster. I'd call him a liar, but that presupposes an understanding of what it means for a statement to actually be true.

So I'll just say he is habitually and reflexively full of shit. He is in fact an excellent bullshit artist, but unfortunately for all of us not an excellent anything else.

He's POTUS because the American people contain a remarkably large proportion of gullible dumb asses. His presidency is an embarrassment to the nation, and an insult to the rest of the world.

He is, however, arguably extroverted.

If you disagree, kindly show your work.

I have no problem with Donald (ObWi Donald, not POTUS Donald). I have no problem with sapient. I have no problem with TNC. I have no problem with Ai Wei Wei.

Sometimes we all say stupid shit. The quote referenced above is stupid shit, whatever the context.

Thank you for this opportunity to reflect upon the person and character of the President of the United States. As with Dick Cheney's celebrated frank exchange of views with Senator Patrick Leahy, I feel better for having said it.

I didn’t actually post the link because of the Wei Wei comment, who I knew almost nothing about until tonight. I posted it because of all the other things Scahill and Coates said, most of which I agreed with. Towards the end I agreed more with Coates than Scahill, the latter who seemed to think it might have been a good idea if Sanders had run a 3 rd party campaign given that Trump won anyway. I think Coates was right to dismiss that as a bad idea.

Donald shouldn't be blamed for the Wei Wei comment, I was the one who drew attention to it.

I have to disagree with Russell here, I think we have to look at Trump as both a totally new entity and the sadly logical continuation of some trends in Western and US politics and society. It's a comment that caught my eye because I know a bit about Wei Wei and when someone like that can be moved to observe that, well, ouch. Maybe he's totally full of shit, but seeing how Republicans are having their own problems disavowing Trump, and the discussion about Obama Scahill and Coates have in the article (the quote is just to set up some observations by Coates) I'm not so sure.

I'd welcome some chat about this, but if you think it has no merit, then I'm not sure there is anything to discuss about it.

I have to disagree with Russell here, I think we have to look at Trump as both a totally new entity and the sadly logical continuation of some trends in Western and US politics and society. It's a comment that caught my eye because I know a bit about Wei Wei and when someone like that can be moved to observe that, well, ouch.

I am, unsurprisingly, entirely with lj on this. The quote, which I believe was referenced by Coates's interviewer, seemed to me to refer to the "American presidency", as opposed to any particular president, let alone Obama, and for any reflexive Dem-defenders out there don't forget that this would include Papa Bush, Baby Bush, Reagan etc as well as any Dems. With historical perspective (which I believe Ai can be assumed to have), and without naming presidents he might or might not have exempted if prompted to, this seems to me an interesting comment and a possible reflection of how nationals of other countries might regard, for example, America's wars and interference in the internal political affairs of other nations. russell's litany of ways in which Trump is exceptional can hardly be argued with, but I agree that when someone like Ai Wei Wei makes such a comment, it bears thinking about (although not necessarily agreement).

I'm now leaving for London, sans car (which I discovered yesterday evening has been written off - very infuriating and upsetting because I get one quarter of the cost of a new one, and it only had 35,000 miles on the clock), so I am putting down the cudgels for the moment, in the devout hope that I won't be drawn into taking them up again. I very much dislike engaging in personal argument here, particularly with sapient, and always hope it won't be necessary, but sometimes needs must.

It seems unnecessary to fight over a remark reported days later and out of context.

Trump and GW Bush have a lot in common - privileged backgrounds, military hawks who avoided the Vietnam War (they're the same age), intellectually uncurious, poor decision making, administrative incompetence.

However, Trump is personally repugnant on top of all that - lying, boasting, bullying, exploiting and abusing. Whereas GWB seems to be personally a likeable guy.

Trump is not just the worst president I've experienced, he's the worst president I can imagine. His only redeeming feature is that his utter incompetence stands in the way of his malign intentions.

Trump is the culmination of America, marking the transition from Republic to Imperial autocracy/oligarchy. He is our Nero, our Caligula as Bush and Obama were our Augustus and Tiberius (who was competent if decadent and disinterested)

Empire is slowly contracting instead of expanding, there are no jobs or opportunities but bread and circuses; welfare/ACA and twitter/streaming services; competitive empires are wary but gingerly testing our boundaries; military is taking charge to avoid disaster; masses have become disinterested in politics except as sport, like Red and Blue Chariot teams. Etc Etc.

It is actually a very boring time to be followed by boring competent benevolent tyrants. Obama was the last chance to avoid acedie and he didn't even try.

Lordon's "Willing slaves of capital" or Wolin's "inverted totalitarianism" are good descriptions, although Wolin was writing in 2004 or so, and imagined more war than will happen. Be just border patrol.

I think I understand the pro second amendment argument about good guys having the right to defend themselves against bad guys, albeit in seems in practice to end up with a lot of people getting shot.

But the argument about resisting government tyranny escapes me altogether. How is it different from saying I want the right to choose which laws I obey, and to shoot any policemen trying to enforce the laws I've opted out of?

I always thought that acedie was a personal failing. but bob mcmanus seems to expand it to a societal one, which is new for me. Not saying it is wrong, but it seems to me that personification of society and societal trends is something that has caused at least to some extent the mess we are in.

How is it different from saying I want the right to choose which laws I obey, and to shoot any policemen trying to enforce the laws I've opted out of?

you're missing the part where objective observers* will declare without qualification that the government has become tyrannical. once that has been determined, overthrowing it is no more unlawful than killing a scary looking black kid who's brandishing a bag of Skittles at you.

Lucky for the insurance companies, the kid, who wishes he could go back 10 months and be preborn again so he could secure his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of American horseshit, didn't join the NRA as a fetus.

Hey, the kid knew what he was signing up for.*

*I'm starting a new series of best American Presidential quotes. The most recent ones, because they are so much more accurate and eloquent than "the worst sharron angles of our better natures" or "ask not what, but ask how high is your marginal tax rate" or "fear itself is what should scare the shit out of you"

A 2016 analysis by Factiva showed that lines from the poem were quoted more often in the first seven months of 2016 than in any of the preceding 30 years

Including many, many times by me, probably on this very site among other occasions. In addition, I'm guessing the first 7 months of 2017 outperformed 2016 very handsomely. Nobody can say we didn't know what we (loosely speaking) were signed up for.

Pro bono: Trump and GW Bush have a lot in common - privileged backgrounds, military hawks who avoided the Vietnam War (they're the same age), intellectually uncurious, poor decision making, administrative incompetence.

However, Trump is personally repugnant on top of all that - lying, boasting, bullying, exploiting and abusing. Whereas GWB seems to be personally a likeable guy.

I think, in fairness to Bush II, it should be noted that, while he was definitely intellectually lazy, that wasn't the end of the story. He might have preferred not to read briefing books, etc. But, in office, he actually did spend the time to read, not just single page summaries with bullet points but actual briefing books.

You can argue about whether he absorbed all that material as well as might have been desired. But there's no question that the difference in the effort Bush II was willing and able to make vs Trump is like night and day. Trump glorified ignorance; Bush didn't. (Which may have something to do with being married to a school teacher, rather than a model....)

And I should, perhaps, note that I have never been a Bush II fan. Didn't vote for him -- not in the primaries, not in the general elections. But putting him in the same bucket with Trump is giving Trump far too much normality.

But there's no question that the difference in the effort Bush II was willing and able to make vs Trump is like night and day.

I wonder how much of the difference is age. Bush II and Trump are within about three weeks of being the same age. From what I can gather, Trump today is a quite different person in some ways compared to 16 years ago. Heck, I'm not as old as they are and my intellectual abilities were a lot sharper 16 years ago: I could read faster, retain more of it, and find the patterns across material better.

Have to say that was Lincolnesque of Bush II to point out after the rump Inaugural. There should be a statue erected near the reflecting pond of Bush tangled up in his rain mack with THAT as the engraved inscription.

Among utterances by ex-Presidents, that was right up there with "A guy could catch his death in this weather" uttered by Martin Van Buren at William Henry Harrison's Inaugural in 1841.

I guess I view Bush II, and Rove, as gateway drugs, one of many slouches toward Bethlehem accomplished by the republican party since Eisenhower to its latest apotheosis of the rump hard stuff.

Senate candidate Roy Moore believes that professional athletes who take a knee during the national anthem are breaking the law.

In an interview with TIME magazine, the Alabama Republican argued that NFL players and others who have protested police violence are violating a section of the U.S. code which outlines how people should conduct themselves when the anthem is played. (The code merely outlines proper etiquette, and there are no legal penalties outlined in the law.)

"It’s against the law, you know that?" he said. "It was a act of Congress that every man stand and put their hand over their heart. That’s the law."

I suppose it was unavoidable that Pat Buchanan would live long enough to keep flapping his lips and, like a chimpanzee, keep banging away on a keyboard and finally string some words together in some semblance of reasonable order that I could find agreement with:

From the Count's link: The people who are going to decide the future of the Middle East are the people who live there. And among these people, the future will be determined by those most willing to fight, bleed, and die for years and in considerable numbers to realize that future.

This is a simple truth that our promoters of never ending war just never seem to understand. I am gobsmacked to be in a position of agreeing with anything spewing from PJB's poison pen....because he is, in just about every respect, a total and complete racist asshole.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so some of us thought.

WTF, Pat? Did you really believe a narcissistic asshole like Trump could resist the siren call of "easy" military victory? There is an easy rule of thumb here. If Obama was for it, Trump will be agin' it....no matter what.

it wasn't too long ago that McCain was ripping into Obama for saying pretty much exactly what McCain just said about Trump.

Obama's complaint was:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

and McCain's campaign said:

“Barack Obama’s elitism allows him to believe that the American traditions that have contributed to the identity and greatness of this country are actually just frustrations and bitterness,”

but now he's all:

...spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history...

Friend of a friend owns a small chain of grocery stores in New Jersey. A few years ago, when Amazon got into groceries, he changed his mind about investing in the growth of his own business. He started buying Amazon shares with his investment capital instead. He saw what happened to Circuit City and Tower Records, Borders and Barnes & Noble. So he bought some Amazon and then he bought some more.

This wasn’t retirement investing. This was something else. What should we call it? Disruption Insurance?

I don’t know. Anyway, long story short, Amazon is up over a thousand percent over the last ten years, and [jersey accent]he don’t need the stores no more.[/jersey accent]

Obama had no problem, and regularly got McCain's support, on our "leaders of the free world" interventionist policy.

Trump, wants us to back off trying to be the world government.

I partly agree with the first part. McCain (and Clinton) wanted more intervention than Obama, so there was a lot of criticism of Obama from the foreign policy pro interventionist establishment during his time in office. Obama was an interventionist, but not enough of one by the lights of some.

On Trump, he sometimes talked an anti-intervention line in the campaign and some conservatives at The American Conservative wanted to believe he meant it. But he also talked about taking oil and being much more brutal, so it was all self-contradictory. And now he seems to be setting the groundwork for war on Iran and N Korea. Well, with Korea it is largely incoherent. With Iran his policy makes sense if he wants to push Iran towards the hardliners and ultimately bomb or invade.

the same people, the same 46% filth, listened to and read this shit below as the 2016 Presidential election, plenty of down market elections, and a Supreme Court Justice slot were stolen by anti-American traitors from the American people, in other words, ME:

(Let us now pause here for your moment of existential terror. The arguments in Gill easily could lead one to believe that the conservative wing of the Court may be one vote away from "re-examining" Reynolds v. Sims, the 1964 Warren Court decision that established one-man-one-vote....